Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

No Apologies for the Bomb: History easily justifies what was done in Hiroshima & Nagasaki
American Thinker ^ | 08/06/2013 | Roger D. Luchs

Posted on 08/06/2013 7:48:46 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-140 last
To: OldMissileer

The Aioi Bridge is what I am reading.

Thanks


101 posted on 08/06/2013 1:30:25 PM PDT by Half Vast Conspiracy (People in America are still tried in the courts rather than by left-wing protesters or by the media.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
What get's lost with these peacenics commies is that Hitler would have developed nukes that would have been used on our allies and the US with impunity.
Would it have been less humane if the MOAB would have been used instead ?
102 posted on 08/06/2013 1:45:43 PM PDT by American Constitutionalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nascarnation
Don't forget about Doolittle’s daring raid on Tokyo.
103 posted on 08/06/2013 1:46:51 PM PDT by American Constitutionalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Resolute Conservative

I love what Gen. Patton said, you don’t win wars by dying for your country, you win wars by making the other SOB die for his country.


104 posted on 08/06/2013 1:48:23 PM PDT by American Constitutionalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The peacenics are upset because the USA got the upper hand with the nukes at that time in history and was on top of the world.... no one could touch the USA at that time.


105 posted on 08/06/2013 1:49:59 PM PDT by American Constitutionalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: American Constitutionalist

LeMay covers it in depth.

Great read.


106 posted on 08/06/2013 1:50:39 PM PDT by nascarnation (Baraq's economic policy: trickle up poverty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Over a million on each side was the estimate.
107 posted on 08/06/2013 1:51:29 PM PDT by American Constitutionalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: JoeFromSidney

“If I’m attacked by a criminal, I may intend to shoot the criminal, but if I’m a poor shot, I may inadvertently hit an innocent bystander. That wasn’t my intention, but it was the outcome.”

Not your fault. The fault lies completely with the criminal as his actions caused collateral damage, as it were. Like a sniper in a hospital (or mosque). . .one can shoot back to defend and if innocents get hurt it is not the fault of the person shooting back, it is the fault of the sniper who is acting with evil because he is placing the innocent in a position to suffer. The sniper is not, in accordance with Just War, acting in a way aimed at minimizing the suffering of innocents. In fact, hje his bringing suffing down on them.

“It gets even trickier when you aim at a legitimate target, knowing that there will be collateral damage among innocent bystanders. The objection raised is, “How can you say you didn’t intend to kill those bystanders when you know it would happen?” The answer is, did the good effect of my attack (destroying a factory, blowing up a train, whatever) follow in any way from the deaths of the bystanders?”

A question of proportionality. Is the military gain worth the cost to the innocent? This is the question that is most difficult and the most politicized.

Many are not able to discern moral difference when it comes to civilian causalities.

Sad.


108 posted on 08/06/2013 2:21:43 PM PDT by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: JoeFromSidney

Oh. . .ref the 1930’s. . .shades of Giulio Dohet. . .I shall now fire off a few thoughts. . .

Douhet suggested that airpower could be a primary fire that would be key to a successful war effort. It took nearly seventy years before he was proved correct by the role airpower played in Gulf War I. In Gulf War I, airpower was the predominant force that ensured a quick and decisive victory. While airpower was not the sole reason for success, it was the first time in history that airpower truly functioned as a primary fire, with ground-based fires in a supporting role.

Airpower dominated the battlefield and ensured the ground campaign was virtually unopposed in any organized fashion. While it may be argued that airpower did not win Gulf War I, it certainly would have made things a lot more difficult if it had not performed well its strategic and operational mission.

For many military planners and strategic thinkers, use airpower correctly and victory may be achieved quickly, efficiently and with minimal damage and reduced loss of life for both sides. Indeed, the Gulf War I air campaign planners used the lessons of Vietnam to help produce an historic air campaign plan that for the first time—ever—resulted in a war where airpower was the primary fire and landpower played a supporting role. Gulf War I’s air campaign was called “Instant Thunder,” a direct and opposite reference to the failed tactical air campaign of Vietnam, “Rolling Thunder.” Unfortunately, some of the old school seem to ignore the strategic airpower lessons of Vietnam and Gulf War I.

For example, during the Kosovo air campaign in Kosovo, Gen Clark gave his staff a specific number of targets to hit. Period. “I want 2,000 targets,” he said. But to what end? What was the desired effect? What was the strategic aim?

Simply stated, with insightful intelligence, precise targeting and the ability of airpower to accurately deliver all sorts of weapons effects, we now have a new weapon in our quiver. Now when the time comes to shoot, we have the airpower arrow from which to choose. It is just as lethal, if not more so in some cases, than any other military instrument. Selecting which weapon to use is like deciding on which golf club to use. One doesn’t use a putter for driving, just as one wouldn’t use a Piper Cub for strategic strikes well behind enemy lines.

With the impressive ability of airpower, combined with exceptional intelligence and targeting, we now have a full golf bag. We can now break par.


109 posted on 08/06/2013 2:38:35 PM PDT by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

the battle for Okinawa killed more people than both a-bombs combined.


110 posted on 08/06/2013 2:43:34 PM PDT by stylin19a (Obama -> Fredo smart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

I understand your “if it works” argument but I think it is misapplied when it comes to military plans. Remember, it is not a question of “if it works it’s okay,” it is a question of “Are we minimizing the suffering of the innocent if we do this?”

So, in a way, just war argues against abortion because abortion has as it’s singular purpose, killing the innocent, whereas “proportionality” does not allow for the deliberate destruction of the innocent. For example, our nuke targeting policy was counter-force (military targets), not counter-value (civilian targets).

“Population” can be a target in war. According to Col John Warden and his “Five Rings,” the population may be “attacked” in order to affect the enemies will and ability to fight and win. But this does not mean we are talking about slaughtering the innocent. No. We are talking about sophisticated psy-ops and other techniques to disrupt/make uncomfortable the civilian population and thereby affecting their war-making support/ability.

Take a moment to view (starting on page “298”): http://mercury.ethz.ch/serviceengine/Files/ISN/57408/ichaptersection_singledocument/65459c5f-da6c-440d-8d20-9c25ff8bfeec/en/Chapter_19.pdf


111 posted on 08/06/2013 2:55:00 PM PDT by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar
How many US Army personel would have to die in an invasion of Japan to make a Leftist feel good about not using the bombs?

Consider the alternative to invasion: blockade. Cut them off from any oil and food imports; have planes drop poison on the rice fields; wait for 90% of the population to starve to death, and the rest to be too weak to resist.

112 posted on 08/06/2013 3:04:11 PM PDT by PapaBear3625 (You don't notice it's a police state until the police come for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Hulka
I am glad you made the important distinction between counter-force and counter-value targeting. I am not, however, convinced that the attack on Hiroshima was based on target = military assets. It seems it was target = city.

If the target was military assets, why did they not target the submarine base?

And why did they target a few hundred thousand civilians in the cities, when they could have targeted 1 - 2,000,000 troops who were being massed on the shores of Kyushu to defend the southern islands from invasion?

These are things I wonder about.

I have no moral objection to "targeting" the civilians with psy-ops. If you can help them decide to give up, so much the better.

113 posted on 08/06/2013 3:23:01 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Hulka
Oh, and I agree with you that in the case of abortion, killing the innocent party is always directly intended. It is the end in itself. If the pregnancy is terminated but the baby comes out alive, that isn't considered a lucky break; it's the most dreaded complication.

Obama even agrees that a right to abortion means a right not tjust to a terminated pregnancy, but also to a dead baby.

If the atomic bomb had been dropped on Hiroshima and, by some crazy fluke, most of the military supply and logistics sites and arms factories were destroyed, but almost nobody else died, that ewouldn't have been considered a lucky break. No American military leader would have said, "Oh, thank God, we obliterated the army depot and the residential areas were miraculously shielded." On the contrary, it would have been considered weirdly unsuccessful. That's because utterly indiscriminate destruction wiping out the city together with its inhabitants, was the point. What do you think?

114 posted on 08/06/2013 3:44:44 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Hulka
Oh, and I agree with you that in the case of abortion, killing the innocent party is always directly intended. It is the end in itself. If the pregnancy is terminated but the baby comes out alive, that isn't considered a lucky break; it's the most dreaded complication.

Obama even agrees that a right to abortion means a right not tjust to a terminated pregnancy, but also to a dead baby.

If the atomic bomb had been dropped on Hiroshima and, by some crazy fluke, most of the military supply and logistics sites and arms factories were destroyed, but almost nobody else died, that wouldn't have been considered a lucky break. Truman would not have said, "Oh, thank God, we obliterated the army depot and the port facilities, and the residential areas were miraculously shielded." On the contrary, it would have been considered weirdly unsuccessful. That's because utterly indiscriminate destruction wiping out the city together with its inhabitants, was the point.

115 posted on 08/06/2013 3:47:20 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625
Consider the alternative to invasion: blockade. Cut them off from any oil and food imports; have planes drop poison on the rice fields; wait for 90% of the population to starve to death, and the rest to be too weak to resist.

So, you would starve millions to death. Is that somehow more humane than a nuclear attack?

The bomb's purpose was to end the war... not prolong it!

116 posted on 08/06/2013 5:07:00 PM PDT by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: RatRipper

This was 68 years ago...

...when men were still men and democrats were still patriotic Americans.


117 posted on 08/06/2013 9:09:09 PM PDT by snuffy smiff (Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
"..They attempted to place the Emperor under house arrest, using the 2nd Brigade Imperial Guard Infantry. They failed to persuade the Eastern District Army (Japan) and the high command of the Imperial Japanese Army to move forward with the action. Due to their failure to convince the remaining army to oust the Imperial House of Japan, they ultimately committed suicide in traditional Japanese form..."

I believe it was the first book you referenced, "Downfall: The end of the Imperial Japanese Empire", that I remember. I read it so many years ago that I couldn't recall the title.

One of the points I was making was that the coup started when a number of field-grade (Majors and Lieutenant Colonels) officers took it upon themselves to "protect" the emperor, not depose him, by surrounding the imperial residence and cutting him off from any further traitorous advice. This shot my eyebrows upwards, because I would have thought that an adventure reserved for the highest level of general officers.

I don't believe that those officers, however, so steeped in Bushido, would have harmed the Emperor in any way, and wouldn't have dreamed of ousting the Imperial House. This transcended politics and was religion.

Their target was to destroy the rescript, the first actual recording of the emperor's voice ever played over the radio, not the emperor himself. He could be contained merely by throwing a protective "cordon" around the residence, and thereby eliminating all communication except what flowed through them.

It is amazing what depths people worldwide can fall to when they have convinced themselves that they are acting to "save the nation". And how no limits apply to them in their zeal and righteousness.

I don't recall anything about a counterfeited order from the emperor, but I have lost much through the aging process, so it was probably so.

The danger is in how determined, finatic groups, once they put the pieces in place, can seize control of a government, by controlling the flow of information.

118 posted on 08/08/2013 10:28:40 AM PDT by pickrell (Old dog, new trick...sort of)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Paddyboy

My dad was training to fight in the mountains of Japan and he was told that it would be very difficult to survive.
One of the factors that they took into account was the ferocity of the Japanese forces in Iwo Jima and Okinawa. Very few prisoners were taken as they chose to fight to the death and it would have been worse on the Japanese homeland.

It would have been truly awful if they had gone on with that plan.


119 posted on 08/09/2013 12:05:44 PM PDT by buffaloguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

bfl


120 posted on 08/11/2013 9:11:10 PM PDT by FreedomPoster (Islam delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

“I think the day is coming when the only thing they will teach kids about WWII are:

The Soviet Union won the war on their own, with little help from us
Dresden
The Internment of Japanese Citizens
Hiroshima and Nagasaki”

We’re farther down that path than most can imagine. Already.

In 1994, it was revealed that the Smithsonian Institution’s National Air and Space Museum was about to complete its decades-long restoration of the B-29 Enola Gay, from which the Hiroshima bomb was dropped. All was to be revealed in a special 1995 exhibit, as part of the 50th anniversary of the end of the Second World War.

Some brave soul leaked the exhibit “script” to some veterans’ groups.

An unvarnished reading of the script gave the distinct impression that the average historical illiterate viewing the exhibit would come away with the distinct conclusion that it had been very unfair and racist, for the United States to start the war, by means of unprovoked sneak attacks with atomic bombs, on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Reaction from veterans’ groups was strong, and prompt. Officials at the Smithsonian dissembled, delayed, lied, and tried to cover things up. Congressional inquiries were launched.

In late 1994 and early 1995, academics and media outlets rushed to the aid of then-NASM director Dr Martin Harwit and his curating staff. Academic talking heads appeared on special news reports, supporting the anti-nuke, anti-military revisionist view. Especially condescending were the latter-day “experts,” who acknowledged that it was “understandable” that WWII veterans might have “strong feelings” about the issue, but they simply didn’t know what they were talking about.

Spearheaded by the Air Force Association, a coalition of veterans groups got the exhibit corrected before its official opening date. Director Harwit resigned in May 1995; he never acknowledged that he and his minions had done anything wrong, nor even ahistoric nor misinformed. Liberals across the nation wailed in dismay, sniveling about the great unwashed masses frightening scholars into silence.

Leftist revisionists accepted their defeat with relative grace. Then their talking-head TV stars launched straightaway into heaping praise on NASM and legions of anti-nuke folks, for politeness and tolerance, in giving way to the veterans’ “whims” about the war. Learned opinions were advanced, that the towering intellects at NASM and in professorial posts nationwide, had caved in to political correctness (!), in giving way to a “special interest group.”

A few talking heads stroked their chins on camera, and pointed out that in a few short years the veterans would be gone. Then the Left/Progressive “professional historians” would have their way: the only story heard would be their Left revisionist one.


121 posted on 08/17/2013 11:34:09 AM PDT by schurmann
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

“... I have no moral objection to “targeting” the civilians with psy-ops. If you can help them decide to give up, so much the better.”

It’s a conceit that there can be noncombatants. Hasn’t been true since 1600 or so. Maybe earlier.

If you have qualms about the morality of killing the enemy, I can only conclude that you are incapable of judging the situation properly.

Moral arguments aside, most of you have gotten the sequence of events wrong anyway:

First, win the war.

Second, fuss about morality.

If Step One is not accomplished, all talk of morality stops.


122 posted on 08/17/2013 11:58:24 AM PDT by schurmann
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: schurmann

You apparently think you have no Judge to face, when this brief life is over.


123 posted on 08/17/2013 1:00:07 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("He will come on that Day to judge the living and the dead, and the world by fire.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

“You apparently think you have no Judge to face, when this brief life is over.”

Many posters are confused. They believe - apparently - that being moral is more important than being effective.

Though there may be times and situations where this is true, I submit that to do so while at war is to court disaster.


124 posted on 08/19/2013 6:32:47 PM PDT by schurmann
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar
I had relatives that were scheduled to take part in the invasion of Japan too. They were relieved , glad and credited dropping the bombs for saving their lives.

Have you ever noticed that those who criticize us for dropping the A bomb[s]on Japan are quite as a mouse concerning the Japanese terror bombing the Chinese cities, bombing Manila after it was declared an open city. Not one complaint do they make about the German bombing of Warsaw, Stalingrad, Rotterdam, London, or Coventry ?

125 posted on 08/19/2013 6:45:27 PM PDT by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar
I had relatives that were scheduled to take part in the invasion of Japan too. They were relieved , glad and credited dropping the bombs for saving their lives.

Have you ever noticed that those who criticize us for dropping the A bomb[s]on Japan are quite as a mouse concerning the Japanese terror bombing the Chinese cities, bombing Manila after it was declared an open city. Not one complaint do they make about the German bombing of Warsaw, Stalingrad, Rotterdam, London, or Coventry ?

126 posted on 08/19/2013 6:45:39 PM PDT by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: schurmann
You and I will both die. Then what?

It seems to me that there are two possible answers to that question. Either:

If it's the first, then it hardly matters who wins a war. Our tenure on this planet is brief; always going, and soon gone; and has no significance; or...

If it's the second, that new perspective may not focus on who won a war.

My friend Mr. Barret, a shrewd, decent and experienced man of tremendous practical, applicable intelligence, who was born in 1926 and is now 87, was 19 and in the USAAF in the Pacific when Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed. It's possible that without those two bombs, J.P. Barret would have been n an excellent position to die at 19.

He knows that; but his perspective now is different than it was when he was 19; now he thinks the one thing necessary, is to do what is right in the eyes of God --- whose perspective he is persuing.

Thirty, fifty years from now, we will all three--- you, me, and Barret-- be dead. It's quite possible there will nobody on this planet who remembers our names. It will be interesting to see what matters then.

127 posted on 08/19/2013 7:47:01 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("See something, say something.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

“... it hardly matters who wins a war. ... that new perspective may not focus on who won a war.

... It’s possible that without those two bombs, J.P. Barret would have been n an excellent position to die at 19. ... the one thing necessary, is to do what is right in the eyes of God -— whose perspective he is persuing. ...”

I am at a loss.

Are moral absolutists merely lazy?

Or are they overtoppingly arrogant?

Claiming that it never matters who wins and who loses enables the claimant to avoid any of the hard work of finding what is actually going on, of deciding what to do, and of actually doing it.

Or, in the case of WWII, what went on and why. “It was bad to kill people with atomic bombs” is easier to say, than actually going out and learning something useful about the times, the people who lived through them, and why they did this or that.

And moral absolutists exhibit hubris by claiming The Almighty has issued them direct orders. The truth of that can never be determined: doubt will exist. And as the late Roger Zelazny noted, doubt is the chastity of the mind.

All of the moral absolutists’ protestations are but to say, “We are more moral than the rest of you, therefore we can ignore you. Or order you about, as it strikes our fancy.”


128 posted on 08/20/2013 6:43:43 PM PDT by schurmann
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
It was the Devil’s Alternative either way. You drop the bomb, hundreds of thousands die.

Drop the bomb, the casualties are mostly the enemy.

129 posted on 08/20/2013 7:04:52 PM PDT by xone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

By this doctrine then, Japan prevails in the war. See Manila for a city fight against the Japanese.


130 posted on 08/20/2013 7:08:15 PM PDT by xone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625
Consider the alternative to invasion: blockade.

Ir was considered, it was rejected because it didn't meet the objectives. In this case it would take too long.

131 posted on 08/20/2013 7:34:15 PM PDT by xone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: schurmann
Well, I'm at a loss myself. I don't know whether you misconstrue my argument by mere inattentiveness and inadvertence, or whether you really do have a comprehension problem.

First, I never claimed that "it never matters who wins and who loses". I made a much more circumscribed observation: that this would not be the sole or uttermost consideration from a perspective of eternity.

Second, you argue as if against a pacifist. I am not a pacifist, not even a nuclear pacifist --- a position I consider defective --- and am assuming that war can be waged in deadly earnest, inflicting hundreds of thousand of fatalities (I'm thinking here of WWII) and be right and just; yes, even if atomic bombs are used --- after all, the different kinds of bombs and armaments per seare a technical, not a moral, distinction.

So you've spent your efforts to rebut points I did not espouse.

I did espouse a longer perspective, since this is a perspective we will be obliged to acknowledge at the point of Judgment. And this is a perspective we get, not from hubris, but from a certain ---to use Zelazny's word --- chastity, since it comes of not succumbing to lust, nor wrath, nor fear, but from a fidelity to the code of the just person, even the just warrior.

Not to get too lengthy about it, war must be conducted by focusing overwhelming destructive force on enemy combatants and their military (not social) targets, since we wish to annihilate the enemies' ability to project military aggression, not their ability to exist as a society. Just force destroys what needs to be destroyed; and it discriminates so that the infrastructure of civilization, and of biological life itself, is not selected as "target".

Discrimination is the key. A person who flicks off morality and is willing to engage in indiscriminate killing, is not engaged in war, but in murder; he is not defending his nation, but turning it into a nation of murderers; to the extent that this advances to completion, in the end he and his enemies are indistinguishable. They are the same, and he has destroyed his society in order to save it.

This is the Judgment of which I speak.

132 posted on 08/21/2013 10:51:20 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("You can observe a lot just by watchin'." - Yogi Berra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: xone; schurmann
By this doctrine then, Japan prevails in the war.

Xone: Not at all. Anticipating the invasion of the southern island of Kyushu, the Japanese prepared Operation Decision (Ketsu-Go) which envisaged the deployment of over 2 million troops along the coast to repel Allied landings. Using the atomic bomb on these massed troops, causing say ten times the amount of (military)troop deaths on Kyushu, than the number of civilian deaths at Hiroshima + Nagasaki, would have been justified.

This may clarify: #83.

133 posted on 08/21/2013 11:05:39 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("You can observe a lot just by watchin'." - Yogi Berra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
The problem with this scenario is that the 2 million men aren't in formation. At Okinawa and Iwo Jima the Japanese didn't contest the landing, on Iwo they didn't shell the beach until it was clogged with troops. On Okinawa there was little resistance up to 4 hours after landing. The Japanese were dug in caves.

The Hiroshima blast had a 3 mile diameter destruction zone. Kyushu is a big island. How were the Americans to determine within bombing accuracy standards the location of mobile assets? The bomb wouldn't have any effect on the artillery in caves dotting the hills. If there was no surrender, now the Allies have to attack across a radiation zone, or bypass that section and leave it as a salient. This is the problem with using a strategic asset in a tactical scenario. There was no real time targeting, horrible bombing accuracy compared to today, the atonic bombs weren't tactical weapons. It may have functioned as a demonstration, but it still took the Japanese 9 days to surrender with two cities destroyed.

134 posted on 08/21/2013 12:42:07 PM PDT by xone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
. Using the atomic bomb on these massed troops, causing say ten times the amount of (military)troop deaths on Kyushu, than the number of civilian deaths at Hiroshima + Nagasaki, would have been justified.

I don't subscribe to the use of Just War theory in cataclysmic events. This particular post exemplifies why. The lack of knowledge of war, the naivete associated with its proponents is painful. Mass of troops means two different things to a JW proponent in this case and to a military person. One thinks that a atomic bomb could kill 2 million men in the defense on a 13000 sq mile island because they are 'massed on the coast'. History shows that that won't be the case but in their zeal for the JW theory rational thought is dissolved.

I believe in protecting civilians lives and property during a war but I won't sacrifice objectives to end the war to that protection as I don't hold that those action are faithful to the men that will be exposed to death/injury in order to accomplish the objective in a roundabout way. I will face judgement when I die, but the blood of my Savior is sufficient should I be found sinful in that case.

135 posted on 08/21/2013 6:52:40 PM PDT by xone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

“...I never claimed that “it never matters who wins and who loses”. I made a much more circumscribed observation: that this would not be the sole or uttermost consideration from a perspective of eternity.”

This is an attempt to play it both ways.

Situations can be assessed differently, depending on perspective (time interval is only one example). As the time interval between “then” (for example, August 1945) and “now” increases without limit, it can be argued that it is moving in the direction of “eternity” (objectively defined as “limitless” but in subjective human terms, it’s only an interval sufficiently large that people have trouble imagining it).

Moral absolutists dislike a change of perspective if it chances to nudge results away from their preferences. How can they remain in control?

They declare that “eternity” is the more important concept; conventional wisdom reinforces their ploy, as nearly everyone is impressed by large numbers. Any moral concepts associated with an ever-unwinding time-stream get a free ride, gaining equivalent force quite independent of merit.

To tie it back to the disagreement, any immediate concerns (like, who wins or loses) cannot help but shrink, set against “eternity.” A mathematical quirk becomes a convenient excuse to hold the participants of “then” in moral disdain - a way to get one-up that few could resist. That includes moral absolutists.

Many who do not subscribe to such a view still deem it worthy, but it strikes me as odious. That’s on top of lazy.

I find protestations of “I’m not really a pacifist” a little difficult to swallow, when in the next breath the speaker condemns the employment of atomic bombs in August 1945 (extended verbalizings about “indiscriminate destruction” sure to follow). No better example can exist, of dire times and equally dire demands for the most serious of armaments. If not then, when? If not against the Axis, against whom?

Moral absolutists prefer being moral over being effective; everybody would prefer to be both, but some of us lesser mortals figured out that in this world (the one we do inhabit) tradeoffs must be made. In their pursuit of the moral (whatever that might entail), absolutists cannot help but diminish in effectiveness. In any war, they become dead weight that others must carry.

There is no way out of this dilemma.


136 posted on 08/22/2013 7:48:18 PM PDT by schurmann
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

” ‘By this doctrine then, Japan prevails in the war.”

” ... say ten times the amount of (military)troop deaths on Kyushu, than the number of civilian deaths at Hiroshima + Nagasaki, would have been justified. ...”

Don’t worry.

Americans have never felt bound to follow their own doctrine anyway.

Some claim that greater flexibility is thus afforded. There are downsides to everything, though, and the indiscipline thus invited has led to chaotic and sometimes deadly consequences.

None of which faces the question squarely. To wit: why are military deaths to be preferred to civilian deaths?

Distinctions cannot be made. This has been true for far longer than many are willing to believe; the last 500 years or so can be seen as one long effort by moralists to deny reality. Even our allies regard us as unrealistic, for merely thinking about making the effort. And our enemies think we’re morons ... noting their proclivities, any attempt to do so invites failure, if not outright disaster. That last word is a great deal stronger than defeat, and it was meant to be.

Arguing that the death of friendly forces is preferable to the death of enemy civilians is a leap into surreal territory. The difference is categorical, not one of degree. But that is precisely the argument made by those who disagree with the employment of atomic bombs in August 1945. No amount of moral posturing - the content of Post 83 is a mercifully short example of such - can dilute such foolishness.


137 posted on 08/22/2013 8:28:55 PM PDT by schurmann
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Initial estimates from the previous island amphibious landings indicated 1 million Allied casualties in the initial actions with probably 100,000 to 300,000 deaths of friendlies.

Every island landing preceding the Mainland campaign had an exponential progression in causalities and fatalities. Unlike the island hopping campaign, the Japanese sentiment regarding their homeland was overwhelmingly more defensible amongst the common man. The public really didn’t care too much about the islands being lost as opposed to their homeland which had never been invaded or conquered by a foreign power.

Additionally, the American war fighting production machine was beginning to fatigue.

More devastating would be the prolonged campaign and risk of a second German Armistice after WWI promoting another war 20 years later by the Japanese people.

The American fight in the Pacific Theater in WWII is nearly a perfect study of a well fought war with a prompt conclusion and the vanquished being returned to self government and success within a generation after the conflict.


138 posted on 08/22/2013 8:41:13 PM PDT by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: American Constitutionalist

Rapatronic photos of atomic bomb detonations, some 1/100,000,000 of a second. “I am become death, the destroyer of world.” Hiroshima bomb - 100 billion atmospheres of pressure. Temperature at center was four times that at the center of the sun and more than 10,000 times that at the sun’s surface. Temperature at epicenter 9,000 degrees F, with 1,000 mile per hour winds. Nasty stuff. I know that it was necessary and it saved countless lives, including probably a million Japanese. But, horrific. I’ve never questioned the necessity of dropping those bombs. I did recently view a documentary White Light, Black Rain and it was absolutely heart rending. A portion can be viewed in the excerpt from YouTube below the link below.

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1024&bih=620&q=rapatronic+nuclear+photographs&oq=rapatronic&gs_l=img.1.1.0l5j0i24l2.2532.6177.0.9507.10.7.0.3.3.0.151.871.0j7.7.0....0...1ac.1.25.img..0.10.899.jLOFpJIUN34

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_58byuLBu0


139 posted on 08/22/2013 8:56:03 PM PDT by donaldo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: donaldo
Those who needed to be condemn for this are the ones who brought it upon themselves.... those to blame for this ? those in Japan who started it.
To blame and condemn the USA for this is to blame the victim.
140 posted on 08/22/2013 10:03:01 PM PDT by American Constitutionalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-140 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson